EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Rape Tort Law

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
admin
By admin | Apr 25 2015 12:28 PM
Blackflag: What does abortion have to do with freedom of speech?
Because your support of free speech is premised on social darwinism.

I could call you a terrible name, and it would be a personal choice to get offended.
Two problems: 1) the whole point of emotional instability is that it's NOT a choice for those people. People don't choose to be emotionally unstable, rather, emotionally unstable people can't choose whether to get offended by stuff.
2) I think that if you tally up the number of suicides that came because somebody was beaten up, and the number of suicides that happened for other reasons, the other reasons would win by a mile. You may call bullshit on it, fine, but words really do hurt people.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 12:28 PM
admin: Then how do you explain every single falsely accused person who's ever been on death row?
Falsely accused people on death row are not there because of one false testimony.
Most nations have a court system which protects people from being charged with a felony without multiple pieces of non-verbal evidence.

You can claim its the lying or other people acting in response to that lie. Basically your worldview has people being smart enough to not accept things at face value until proven. Frankly, they will. They always do.
You are getting off topic with this "people getting murdered" nonsense. This is the 21st century and we are living in the developed world. No one is going to get murdered for an accusation that they are a witch. Stop with the chalky examples.
admin
By admin | Apr 25 2015 12:33 PM
Blackflag: Most nations have a court system which protects people from being charged with a felony without multiple pieces of non-verbal evidence.
OK, but what if the judge just had a grudge against that person. Or presumed them guilty. I've seen legal papers showing that what judges eat for breakfast has a significant impact on how likely they are to convict somebody. Similarly, what if those presenting the "non-verbal" evidence in court are not truthful. Society has a way about this: once somebody is accused, everyone starts to be out to get that person.

No one is going to get murdered for an accusation that they are a witch. Stop with the chalky examples.
Bullshit. People get murdered for that kind of thing in the third world right now. It's our criminalization of this kind of thing, like slander, that prevents it in the first world.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 12:39 PM
Because your support of free speech is premised on social darwinism.
It is a false equivalency lars. They are two completely different and comprehensive scenarios.

the whole point of emotional instability is that it's NOT a choice for those people. People don't choose to be emotionally unstable, rather, emotionally unstable people can't choose whether to get offended by stuff.
Oh, I'm sure. Maybe a 5 year old child would have trouble understanding that he can choose to not be offended, but when are we going to wisen up and admit that at a certain age people are responsible for their own emotions. With this logic we can excuse people from everything. It isn't that guys fault he doesn't have a job. It isn't her fault that she flunked high school.

Guess what everybody, whatever happens in life is your fault. If you did not develop mechanisms to defend yourself from other peoples words, then it is pretty much entirely your fault.

2) I think that if you tally up the number of suicides that came because somebody was beaten up, and the number of suicides that happened for other reasons, the other reasons would win by a mile. You may call bullshit on it, fine, but words really do hurt people.
Suicide rates are high in groups that were often discriminated against. Not everyone chooses to commit suicide though.
People who are weak kill themselves. People who are strong do not. Therefore words do not what kill, but how a person receives them.

Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 12:44 PM
OK, but what if the judge just had a grudge against that person. Or presumed them guilty. I've seen legal papers showing that what judges eat for breakfast has a significant impact on how likely they are to convict somebody. Similarly, what if those presenting the "non-verbal" evidence in court are not truthful. Society has a way about this: once somebody is accused, everyone starts to be out to get that person.

That is also why things like juries exist. I already told you that you cannot be charged for a felony using only non-verbal evidence. It is actually supposed to be inadmissible for charging someone with the death penalty here.

Bullshit. People get murdered for that kind of thing in the third world right now. It's our criminalization of this kind of thing, like slander, that prevents it in the first world.
Guess what these specific third world countries do not have? Free speech. If they had free speech in these stone age societies this medieval practice would eventually die out.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 12:47 PM
@admin Okay, so there is actually a relevant issue that has been discussed lately here in the United States. Should bullied kids who commit suicide go to jail? Right now many of our state governments have such a law. I think this is we should start a debate on.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 12:47 PM
Blackflag: Lol, correction...
"Should the bullies of kids who commit suicide go to jail?"
admin
By admin | Apr 25 2015 12:57 PM
Blackflag: They are two completely different and comprehensive scenarios.
You can't just be a social darwinist when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. Social darwinism is a universal principal. Deal with it.

when are we going to wisen up and admit that at a certain age people are responsible for their own emotions.
Never because people are not. Choice and emotion happen in completely different parts of the brain. In some people these parts are more strongly connected than other parts. Simple as that.

It isn't that guys fault he doesn't have a job. It isn't her fault that she flunked high school.
And sometimes it isn't.

Guess what everybody, whatever happens in life is your fault.
A child born into poverty in a poor country with abusive parents and a genetic defect does not inherently have "fault". This is probably the dumbest thing you've said yet. Sometimes in life things happen to us that are completely out of our control and we need to manage those things.

If you did not develop mechanisms to defend yourself from other peoples words, then it is pretty much entirely your fault.
Are you saying this because you like being mean to people with your words, because I consider that probably the highest form of weakness. Or are you saying this because you just like to assign fault as blame so you can feel superior to other people, because frankly that's little better. Just wondering what encourages somebody to make a claim like this.

Not everyone chooses to commit suicide though.
Sure, but it just shows what hurts those people. Words are a big burden to overcome, not just nothing like you suppose.

Therefore words do not what kill, but how a person receives them.
People who are strong survive knife attacks or being shot. People who are weak do not. Would you therefore also legalize violence of all sorts?

I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 1:11 PM
You can't just be a social darwinist when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. Social darwinism is a universal principal. Deal with it.
Yeah, I actually can. Just like I agree with pacifism in some scenarios and don't believe in it in others.

Never because people are not. Choice and emotion happen in completely different parts of the brain. In some people these parts are more strongly connected than other parts. Simple as that.
Not true. Emotions are immediate obviously, but only for a moment. The decision to let a spontaneous emotion take control of you is a choice. When someone says something awful to me it definitely stings for a second, but in the next three seconds I consolidate myself and choose not to let it affect me. Simple as that.

And sometimes it isn't.
That is pretty much never the case. I am presented with billions of choices throughout the course of my life. Are you telling me that none of those choices would have me prosperous with a stable job. Owning up to your own life is a far more enlightened way of thinking than constantly making excuses for how things got how they are.

Are you saying this because you like being mean to people with your words, because I consider that probably the highest form of weakness. Or are you saying this because you just like to assign fault as blame so you can feel superior to other people, because frankly that's little better.
I am not saying either of those things. Saying something mean is usually unnecessary and uncalled for, but I am not going to sue you for it.
The claim is not based on my attitude towards others anyhow. Logically one would be responsible for what emotions they choose to live under following an insult.

People who are strong survive knife attacks or being shot. People who are weak do not. Would you therefore also legalize violence of all sorts?
Emotional strength and Physical strength are different in relation to the problem. Someone who is emotionally weak is battling themselves to live. Someone who is physically weak is battling someone else.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 1:15 PM
@admin - What if someone makes the claim that Tony Abbott is trying to install himself as a dictator? Would Tony Abbott be justified in making a law banning the defamation of his character?
admin
By admin | Apr 25 2015 1:36 PM
Blackflag: Just like I agree with pacifism in some scenarios and don't believe in it in others.
Being a social darwinist only when it suits you is more commonly referred to as being a bully. And I might add, not particularly compatible with mainstream social darwinism.

Not true. Emotions are immediate obviously, but only for a moment. The decision to let a spontaneous emotion take control of you is a choice.
Yes true. It's the difference between the amygdala and the cerebral cortex. It's simply a function of how your brain is wired up.

Are you telling me that none of those choices would have me prosperous with a stable job.
Quite probably. It's almost never a single choice. And frankly it's a totally weird mindset, this idea that everyone is personally responsible for everything that happens to them. I told you once that this is why I didn't like America. I think it's still true today. If a business screws you in my country, the business is generally at fault. In America however, you would be at fault for choosing to deal with the business, rather than the business for choosing the screw you. It's just the most sad kind of society where nobody cares about the screwed (for the most part).

Owning up to your own life is a far more enlightened way of thinking than constantly making excuses for how things got how they are.
And then Americans have the audacity to call this "enlightened." Bringing up metaphysical justifications for bullying such people is digging the hole ever deeper. I think the narrative of America as a land of opportunity has become twisted. It's supposed to mean a level playing field - or at least, that's what it meant to America's early settlers who escaped oppression and occasionally poverty in Europe. This is far from what it has come to mean, and now seems to be all about blaming each other for not being on the same level. And somehow this is supposed to be ideal for society's growth.

Saying something mean is usually unnecessary and uncalled for, but I am not going to sue you for it.
In this case, a guy's reputation and job prospects are gone for life. Who'd hire an accused rapist? It's more than just uncalled for.

The claim is not based on my attitude towards others anyhow.
Yes it is, you just claimed before you're a social darwinist, one of the original core tenants of which was helping weak people be destroyed so the human race could be stronger.

Someone who is emotionally weak is battling themselves to live. Someone who is physically weak is battling someone else.
Well if people weren't slandering them they wouldn't be "battling themselves". It's like saying that people who suffer from major contagious diseases are battling themselves to live. Should we let them die too, or stop the spread of these diseases?

Would Tony Abbott be justified in making a law banning the defamation of his character?
Defamation of character is illegal in UK law anyway. Not that I think that specific example would qualify as slanderous or defamatory as it's a moral claim, not a claim of fact. Might need a proper lawyer to confirm though.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 1:57 PM
Being a social darwinist only when it suits you is more commonly referred to as being a bully. And I might add, not particularly compatible with mainstream social darwinism
Not really. Social darwinism is a philosophy. Believing the world works in certain ways should imply nothing about character.

Yes true. It's the difference between the amygdala and the cerebral cortex. It's simply a function of how your brain is wired up.
So how long does it take to overcome spontaneous emotions? Is there anytime where you blame a continued state of mind on the person? Do you expect change in 10 years?
If I am hurt, I can overcome it and consolidate myself within 10 seconds. If I can choose to not to feel hurt, then others can as well.

Quite probably. It's almost never a single choice. And frankly it's a totally weird mindset, this idea that everyone is personally responsible for everything that happens to them. I told you once that this is why I didn't like America. I think it's still true today. If a business screws you in my country, the business is generally at fault. In America however, you would be at fault for choosing to deal with the business, rather than the business for choosing the screw you. It's just the most sad kind of society where nobody cares about the screwed (for the most part).
Just because you do not like the truth of things doesn't make it any less true. People should be responcible for their own choices. If someone is screwed over by a business, then it is there fault. With that said, I would support making it harder for businesses to screw people. We live in a mostly capitalist driven society. We do not punish greedy people, and I do not think we should. How could I possibly be of the opinion that we should punish mean people?

And then Americans have the audacity to call this "enlightened." Bringing up metaphysical justifications for bullying such people is digging the hole ever deeper. I think the narrative of America as a land of opportunity has become twisted. It's supposed to mean a level playing field - or at least, that's what it meant to America's early settlers who escaped oppression and occasionally poverty in Europe. This is far from what it has come to mean, and now seems to be all about blaming each other for not being on the same level. And somehow this is supposed to be ideal for society's growth.

No one is justifying bulling. My stance is that one who does bully or lie should not go to jail. You are a debater, but you are throwing lots of arguments on my character and making lots of strawmans. Not good and you know it.

Bullies should not be punished for what the bullied choose to do to themselves. If the bullied blames his own personal choice on the bully, he is making an excuse. Weak people make excuses, that is why they cannot understand the concept of choosing to hold a positive attitude in the face of a jerk/

In this case, a guy's reputation and job prospects are gone for life. Who'd hire an accused rapist? It's more than just uncalled for.
That is not the point. The reason why slander and defamation should not be illegal is because no one can know with certainty if the accusations are true or not.
Is it possible that god doesn't exist? Unlikely, but we allow people to claim that god doesn't exist because we have know way of proving they are wrong.

You cannot draw a line on what can be said and not said and still call it "free speech".

Yes it is, you just claimed before you're a social darwinist, one of the original core tenants of which was helping weak people be destroyed so the human race could be stronger.
I did claim to be a social darwinist. I called the concept social darwinism. Nonetheless, this is a false interpretation of social darwinism. Social darwinism isn't the belief that you should help the weak, but rather do nothing to help the weak from dying. That is where I differ from social darwinism, because I believe you should actively help the weak become strong, but that is out of charity , not out of expectation.



Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 2:00 PM
Well if people weren't slandering them they wouldn't be "battling themselves". It's like saying that people who suffer from major contagious diseases are battling themselves to live. Should we let them die too, or stop the spread of these diseases?
Sure, but it is better to live a life fighting many struggles than none at all. Struggle makes you stronger. You either choose to become stronger, or you choose to give up and die. Giving people a choice isn't a crime. Well, I guess it is, because that is what harassment does.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 2:03 PM
Defamation of character is illegal in UK law anyway. Not that I think that specific example would qualify as slanderous or defamatory as it's a moral claim, not a claim of fact. Might need a proper lawyer to confirm though.
Facts don't exist. Knowledge is a justified belief which could be true.
Banning people from saying things because a couple of confused people think that facts can be proven is idiocy.
admin
By admin | Apr 25 2015 5:18 PM
Blackflag: Believing the world works in certain ways should imply nothing about character.
True. ACTING on those beliefs, however, might.

So how long does it take to overcome spontaneous emotions?
It's like asking how long it takes to overcome being shot in the chest before you can rightfully label them as just a "wuss". Different people recover in different ways, at different rates.

If I can choose to not to feel hurt, then others can as well.
Oh, I forgot your brain is exactly identical to everyone else's.

People should be responsible for their own choices.
Why? This is exactly the kind of stupid morality that leaves so much of America struggling. In New Zealand, we have a law called the Consumer Guarantees Act. It states that if we buy something, then whoever we buy it off is liable to give us what they promised us, or else give us our money back (their choice). It's a simple enough law that keeps society functioning smoothly. People don't get ripped off and don't need to buy stupid warranties and businesses do just fine selling stuff. That means society does much better because trade happens really efficiently and nobody can be legally ripped off. Can you imagine America trying to do something like that? No way. And that's a shame for that society, rather than just my moral opinion.

If someone is screwed over by a business, then it is there fault.
As an automatic assumption this fails. Would you also say its the customers fault if they were forced to buy something at gunpoint? No physical injury required. Still a screw-over.

No one is justifying bulling.
OK. Well then explain how something can be "enlightened" but "unjustified".

You are a debater, but you are throwing lots of arguments on my character and making lots of strawmans.
Against your argument. I'm saying this argument in inane.

Weak people make excuses, that is why they cannot understand the concept of choosing to hold a positive attitude in the face of a jerk
Maybe that's because I've proven ample times that it's not a choice?

That is not the point.
Yes it is. You said slander does not leave anyone worse off in any way, and I showed this to be false. In fact to claim damages for slander you need to also show this.

The reason why slander and defamation should not be illegal is because no one can know with certainty if the accusations are true or not.
The same is true of ALL criminal laws. "Your honor, this DNA evidence, multiple witnesses, other physical evidence etc that I killed this man is not conclusive proof, only very strong evidence... therefore you can't convict me!"

You cannot draw a line on what can be said and not said and still call it "free speech".
Yes you can. This is the whole thing about a general principle vs a specific exception. You agreed with this right at the start.

Social darwinism isn't the belief that you should help the weak, but rather do nothing to help the weak from dying.
Not the way I was taught it, but either way it's a claim you made based on your attitude towards others. The same would hold in your differing worldview.

Sure, but it is better to live a life fighting many struggles than none at all.
Why? Isn't the point of human progress to overcome struggles?

Giving people a choice isn't a crime. Well, I guess it is, because that is what harassment does.
Prove it. The fact remains, emotional responses are not choices, and people deal with them differently.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 25 2015 5:43 PM
It's like asking how long it takes to overcome being shot in the chest before you can rightfully label them as just a "wuss". Different people recover in different ways, at different rates.
Not really. Emotional defense is as simple as ignoring the verbal attack, or not caring about the verbal attack.

Oh, I forgot your brain is exactly identical to everyone else's.
Anyone without serious mental illness has the capabilities to do what I can. Blaming every problem that gets thrown your way on bad circumstances is lame imo. I guess some people can never learn to win at chess or pass a final exam, because they were not born with a privileged mans brain *sarcasm*

It states that if we buy something, then whoever we buy it off is liable to give us what they promised us, or else give us our money back (their choice).
How is that different from a contract? I do believe in legal obligations to tell the truth just so you know.

As an automatic assumption this fails. Would you also say its the customers fault if they were forced to buy something at gunpoint? No physical injury required. Still a screw-over.
False equivalency. No one is being forced to buy anything at gun point. They would still have a choice, but my point is that they are aware of the consequences if they choose wrong. It is not unreasonable to expect people to use their brain and make it through some of life's challenges on their own.

OK. Well then explain how something can be "enlightened" but "unjustified".
I never said a bully is enlightened. I said one who does not blame his problems on others is enlightened. Stop straw manning, man!

Maybe that's because I've proven ample times that it's not a choice?
Where is this proof? All you did is claim that people are helpless when verbally attacked. I know that you know that is bullshit.
People are responcible for what emotions they want to be controlled by. Happiness is a mindset, and so is depression. Adopting a strong mindset ain't that hard when we are not constantly babying people with things like harassment and slander laws.

Yes it is. You said slander does not leave anyone worse off in any way, and I showed this to be false. In fact to claim damages for slander you need to also show this.

Please tell me again how words kill, take jobs, and ruin people's lives? Enough people have been the center of rumors to know that they are very easy to ward off.

Why? Isn't the point of human progress to overcome struggles?

The goal of human progress is to reach a state of higher being. You cannot learn to be a better man without challenges and struggle. If you do overcome a struggle then you come out stronger and more experienced the next time the struggle comes. It is especially important to overcome things like harassment, love, and death during youth, or you'll crack when you are older.

The same is true of ALL criminal laws. "Your honor, this DNA evidence, multiple witnesses, other physical evidence etc that I killed this man is not conclusive proof, only very strong evidence... therefore you can't convict me!"
Slander can only be proven to be what it is if you can first prove the accusations are false. Restricting what could be false beliefs and people's right to verbally project those beliefs is totalitarian.
The actual consequences of being slandered are minisculed, and the consequences laws against it are huge. That is why it is different than other laws.

Yes you can. This is the whole thing about a general principle vs a specific exception. You agreed with this right at the start.
What exactly did I say? You have a habit of twisting my words, you slanderous administrator.

Prove it. The fact remains, emotional responses are not choices, and people deal with them differently.
Immediate emotional responces are not a choice which I stated two posts previous to this one.
And yeah, people do deal with their emotions differently. My argument is that people have a choice in how they deal with their emotions.

We should excuse everyone who commits murder because they didn't have a choice in how they handled their emotions, right?
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Apr 26 2015 1:02 PM
Blackflag: ...Really? Being accused of rape is a big deal, especially if everyone believes your accuser and protests to have you removed from the college or imprisoned. The dude was ostracized and hated, likely verbally abused by the other students, called out in public, and possibly physically abused.
His lawsuit is entirely justified, and if I were in his shoes I don't know if I'd have the self-control needed to merely file a lawsuit.
Thumbs up from:
admin
By admin | Apr 26 2015 2:48 PM
Blackflag: Emotional defense is as simple as ignoring the verbal attack, or not caring about the verbal attack.
That's like saying recovering from wounds is as simple as ignoring the bullet.

Anyone without serious mental illness has the capabilities to do what I can.
Again, prove it.

I guess some people can never learn to win at chess or pass a final exam, because they were not born with a privileged mans brain *sarcasm*
It's not about male or privilege. I actually think not caring about words is a significant weakness. "You've got cancer" ... "Doctor, I don't care!". You can see how that leads to death.

Girls do think about chess differently, but this does not in any way make them worse players.

How is that different from a contract? I do believe in legal obligations to tell the truth just so you know.
Two reasons:
1) Sales are not inherently contracts.
2) The law applies by default even in absence of a contract, and is very hard for the seller to get out of - basically you can't buy something of poor quality, for example, unless the seller tells you very explicitly that the quality is poor.

If you believe in legal obligations to tell the truth, why not apply that to this university telling the truth?

False equivalency. No one is being forced to buy anything at gun point.
My point is that it's not the sellers who are always right.

It is not unreasonable to expect people to use their brain and make it through some of life's challenges on their own.
It's also not unreasonable to give struggling people help when they need it.

I never said a bully is enlightened. I said one who does not blame his problems on others is enlightened.
OK, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but this is not much better.

All you did is claim that people are helpless when verbally attacked. I know that you know that is bullshit.
Not helpless. I said people don't have an automatic choice. There's a big difference. Brains can work stuff out, but some people do so more in the rational mind (like you, making an active choice) and some people do so more in the amygdala which overpowers their rational mind (like me, though I'm a fairly extreme case - I can cry for hours when somebody hurts me). Even in people like you though, the limbic system is faster than the connections to the cortex, so you still feel that initial pain no matter what you try to decide, as you identified. It's just how the brain works. This would be true even if people didn't have to live with the physical consequences of the slander as this guy does. The fact that it happens in separate parts of the brain, ones not responsible for choice, should be proof enough.

Adopting a strong mindset ain't that hard when we are not constantly babying people with things like harassment and slander laws.
This guy has been living with constant harassment and slander for YEARS. It's not like it's just one off remark. Rather than saying we shouldn't be babying people, how about we start focusing on how our society is bullying people.

Please tell me again how words kill, take jobs, and ruin people's lives?
Words inspire many people to kill each other.
Words make you not want to hire somebody for a job.
The pen is mightier than the sword.

Look, the whole nation hated this guy after that girl's stunt. There are millions of people who'd love to get their hands on him, probably still. He's not exactly ever received any sympathy here. The least his university could do is remain neutral. Show me what "choice" this guy could possibly make to become successful, when he'll be forever labelled as a "rapist".

Enough people have been the center of rumors to know that they are very easy to ward off.
I have too. People still tell rumors about what happened between me and Juggle, for example. It hurts every time.

It is especially important to overcome things like harassment, love, and death during youth, or you'll crack when you are older.
Seriously? Oh well, as somebody who's never fallen in love with my "youth" days numbered, I guess I'm screwed for life then...

Slander can only be proven to be what it is if you can first prove the accusations are false.
... suppose he can? I mean, he has before in a court of law.

What exactly did I say?
I said "Of course, for the record, a general right of free speech does not mean unlimited freedom to speak. There can still be specific instances that override it."
You replied "There can be."
General rules are always beaten by exceptions in law. It goes back to latin times, lex specialis derogat legi generali.

We should excuse everyone who commits murder because they didn't have a choice in how they handled their emotions, right?
Certainly there are cases where this can reduce culpability. For example, if somebody is (actually) raped, then murders their attacker soon after.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Page: 12Most Recent